HDR or Post Edited Images

Hi There Peeps,

I have had many feature pix on Picture social using HDR and also Edited photographs, I have found that my experience of HDR through the years has been a good one although on the other hand a bad one also.

Reason being is that i have moved away from HDR due to feeling it's a bit of a cop out to be honest, this is only my opinion. Why can't Picture Social have twos sections, one section for HDR images; and the other for normal photographs?

The truth about HDR is that you can make plain Jane images look pretty good without really having to be a skilled photographer, i feel that it's a tool that really is over rated and draws to much attention away from real photography, I hope this does not offend any of you peeps as i have come to this conclusion through using HDR and i just feel that it's use is more of a gimmick and should not have any place in producing serious photographs.

Picture Social seems to feature to many HDR's these days??

Am i the only one with this opinion??

Si Mason :)

Tags: HDR

2 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Reg Warboys on January 17, 2012 at 2:58am

Si what is a normal photograph ?

You have a great collection of images but I see many with photoshop gimmicks added, that's not normal, motor bike doing a wheely with the zoom effect, not as good as your straight shots of the bikes. Best of all are your HDR shots. So I ask you "what is normal"?.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Si Mason on January 17, 2012 at 6:00am

Your right about the effect, although using a bit of creative input is surely better than using the same old.. same old HDR techniques. you can create far better post edited images without using these HDR programs.

I have nothing against, manipulated images as that's a great way of expression. Just tired of seeing the Same old HDR images taking top spots on here constantly. that's why i would love to see 2 separate categories on here.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Wise on January 17, 2012 at 1:44pm

Normal, whatever is socially and morally acceptable at that present place and time. If you happen to be a headhunter in the jungles, guess what is normal :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary Vernon on January 17, 2012 at 4:53am

Hi Si,

there is nothing wrong with bracketing exposures. You make a distinction between HDR and Edited when by default bracketing involves editing?

The task of bracketing to resolve comfortably all the range of tones in an exposure is normal in tricky lighting.

The faddish aspect of maxing out the software sliders to obtain skies that are darker than the ground it illuminates as a light source, cartoon'ish colors and weird halo's has become passe' on many pro sites...

It is not difficult to obtain a nice color and tone balance when merging and editing exposures if one follows the usual "less is more" rule..

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Si Mason on January 17, 2012 at 5:57am

Yes, I use Expodisc these days for a good white balance before shooting my subjects. as far as using HDR i have binned it due to the to severe unwanted colour changes that HDR produces & unwanted grain in the shadows etc. plus i do post edit in ps. although i'm not convinced that HDR is the way forward. I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread when i first started using it around 5 years ago. now i feel it's a cheat to be honest. I haven't used HDR for the past 12 months, as I would sooner post edit in photo shop which gives no halo effects or exaggerated colour etc. I only used blends and no multiple exposure layers. :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary Vernon on January 17, 2012 at 7:52am

I don't know whether you are shooting Raw, you don't say.

Shooting multiple Raw exposures is the best way to avoid excessive noise in HDR, that and exporting as .psd or .tiff files when editing in CS5.

You are saying you only use blends and not multiple exposures which would mean 'pseudo' HDR in Topaz for an example program - doing it that way will increase your 'noise' as you have to push a single exposure to the limits.

......................

The photograph below was 5 exposures if i remember merged in Nik HDR Pro,

the image would have far more artifacts if i had just selected the one exposure to work on.

As it is now it represents the way i saw it.

Of course maxing the sliders to create a surrealistic cartoon if desired is very easy - as CC says below, do it the way that makes you happy :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Si Mason on January 18, 2012 at 4:47am

Hi Gary, I no longer shoot in raw as i get pretty good results in Jpg using the Nikon D3s these days. I have come away from using multiple exposures and Raw files as i have found that i produce just as effective better quality images through using post editing, which gives me a lot more control over the image and the final result,.

This is a technique that I have started to use which is only taking a good white balance reading, single off camera flash unit (for the fill) and also a Good polarizer. a little post editing also with no multiple exposures.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CameraClicker on January 17, 2012 at 5:52am

It is your art. Do it the way that makes you happiest.

If you are shooting in a studio, you probably have lights to set, to get just the right effect. If you are out in the street, or the field, it may be hard to set up several studio strobes to light the scene. Once in a while a professional photographer will light a building with upwards of thirty strobes but that kind of thing requires a major budget and a crew. Do we say it is a bad photo because a number of lights were used instead of just natural light, or do we praise for being able to adjust the lights to get the desired effect?

If a camera is a tool, a tripod is a tool, and lights are tools, how is HDR any different? If composition is a skill, and editing is a skill, is HDR also a skill?

Some photographers take the photo and then pass it to a retoucher for adjustment. Other photographers do the white balance and curves thing themselves. Which one is the better photographer? Hard question to answer. A bit like asking if the studio photographer is better than the street photographer, apples and oranges.

In the wrong hands, HDR can deliver a really bad result. I have seen some that were very good, too.

Do as you wish. What matters most is the final image.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Wise on January 17, 2012 at 1:47pm

Hello CC, long time no see. Very well said!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Si Mason on January 18, 2012 at 4:59am

Hi CameraClicker, yes i agree with your view. here is an image that i created for a client last year. this is extreme post editing without the use of HDR.

I myself do not think that HDR is down to skill, I think its a good tool as an instep to show what is possible in photo editing, but in hind site that's all it is.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tiffany Smith on January 17, 2012 at 1:20pm

To me "plain jane" images are just snapshots that anyone can take. I do believe that you have to have some sort of skill to pull off HDR because you can do it right and you can do it wrong. Some people way overdo HDR images making them look cartoonish and just horrible and other can bring out the right colors and shadows, etc and make it look excellent.

I like that you can add any pictures for all to see or if they don't want to see it they don't have to.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Si Mason on January 18, 2012 at 4:26am

Hi Tiffany, I myself have come away from HDR due to some of the points that you have said. I have started using a good white balance method, which gives me a better colour saturation which gives me better quality vibrant colours.

I have nothing against HDR, as it's each to there own. i just feel that it can give a photographer a false sense of confidence in the ability in progressing to be a skilled photographer.